People don’t want to ‘see British military action,’ says humiliated PM, after vote that means country will play no part in any US-led intervention

People take part in a protest calling for no military attack on Syria from the US, Britain or France, outside the Houses of Parliament, in London, on Thursday, August 29, 2013. (photo credit: AP/Matt Dunham)

Newsroom

Related Topics

LONDON — British Prime Minister David Cameron lost a vote endorsing military action against Syria by 13 votes Thursday, a stunning defeat for a government which had been poised to join the US in strikes to punish Bashar Assad’s regime for an alleged chemical weapons attack this month.

Cameron’s nonbinding motion was defeated 285-272, marking a personal humiliation for the prime minister, underlining parliamentarians’ wariness of entering military conflict, and weakening the US-British special relationship.

The prime minister indicated that the vote meant that Britain would now play no role in any US-led military intervention in Syria. “I strongly believe in the need for a tough response to the use of chemical weapons but I also believe in respecting the will of this House of Commons,” Cameron said after the vote. “It is clear to me that the British Parliament, reflecting the views of the British people, does not want to see British military action. I get that and the Government will act accordingly.”

The US administration, responding to the stunning setback, said it would “continue to consult” with Britain, one of its “closest allies and friends,” but added that it would act in US interests, and in the belief that countries that used chemical weapons had to be “held accountable.”

British Prime Minister David Cameron (photo credit: UK Department for International Development/Flickr)

At the start of the week, Cameron had seemed ready to join Washington in possible military action against Assad over the alleged chemical weapons attack. But the push for strikes against the Syrian regime began to lose momentum as Britain’s Labour Party — still smarting from its ill-fated decision to champion the invasion of Iraq in 2003 — announced its opposition to the move.

Cameron gave concessions, promising to give the UN inspectors time to report back to the UN Security Council and to do his outmost to secure a resolution there. He also promised to give lawmakers a second vote in a bid to assuage fears that Britain was being rushed into an attack on Assad.

In the end, it wasn’t enough to dispel lingering suspicions that what was billed as a limited campaign would turn into an Iraq-style quagmire.

Tony Travers, the director of the government department at the London School of Economics, said Cameron had clearly miscalculated when he brought Parliament back early from its summer recess. He said the move had been unpopular even within Cameron’s Conservative Party.

“Clearly this will be seen as a defeat, it suggests he got the politics wrong, both with the opposition and with some members of his own party,” Travers said. “It’s not great, it’s not brilliant, nor is it the end of the world for him. He’s lost votes before. It doesn’t necessarily stop them taking further action, but they are going to have to start again really.”

He said there was “not a lot” of public support for British military activity in Syria.